Sunday, 11 October 2009

Now the rainman gave me two cures, and he said, "Jump right in."The one was Texas medicine, the other was just railroad gin,And like a fool I mixed them and it strangled up my mind,Now people just get uglier and I have no sense of time. Bob Dylan, Stuck Inside Of Mobile With The Memphis Blues Again, 1966.

place is filling up with environmental bureaucrats, inevitable I guess, know-nothings the ones I've met, resonating blow-hards collecting cheques ... some kind of assistant manager to the Commissioner of something from the province of Ontario government, so I asked, "What are interactions and relations like with federal agencies you may run into?" and he didn't seem to understand the question, anyway, he didn't answer it ...

these people gave Obama the Nobel peace prize, he needs support and they give him lame applause before he has gotten properly started, the Norwegian bourgeoisie, good, healthy-looking people and old enough to look before they leap (you would think) ...

Thorbjørn Jagland: b. 1950.Chair of the Nobel Committee. President of the Storting. President of the Storting. 2005-2009. Prime Minister 1996-1997. Foreign Minister 2000-2001. Member of the Storting 1993-2009. Member of the Committee since 2009, appointed for the period 2009-2014.

Kaci Kullmann Five: b. 1951Deputy chair of the Nobel Committee. Self employed Advisor Public Affairs. Chairman of the Young Conservatives, 1977-79. Member of the Storting, 1981-97. Cabinet Minister for Trade, Shipping and European Affairs, 1989-90. Chairman of the Conservative Party, 1991-94. Member of the Committee since 2003, reappointed for the period 2009-2014.

Sissel Marie Rønbeck: b. 1950Chairman Social Democratic Youth (AUF) 1975-1977. Member of the Storting 1977-1993. Cabinet Minister 1979-81, 1986-89 and 1996-97. Member of the Committee since 1994, reappointed for the period 2006-2011.

Inger-Marie Ytterhorn: b. 1941Senior political adviser to the Progress Party's parliamentary group. Member of the Storting, 1989-93. Member of the Election Law Ad hoc committee 1998-2001. Member of the Committee since 2000, reappointed for the period 2006-2011.

Ågot Valle: b. 1945Member of the Storting. Member of the Storting 1997-2009. President of the Odelsting 2001-2005. Member of the Committee since 2009, appointed for the period 2009-2014.

the health initiative is going the same way as the Waxman/Markey bill, diluted and diluted and diluted and then gutted by every interest group under the sun till it makes no nevermind, fucking maggots - all of them

I bought a car, what I really wanted was a bicycle but it got too complicated, now I will have to drive to Montreal tho I would rather take the train :-)

I used to mock Greenpeace, back in the days when they were so on about the seal hunt and whatnot, but I am changing my tune, they are having fun, they are doing necessary work that no one else is doing, my mock returns as envy :-)

Marina Silva gets a prize too, from Prince Albert the swelte second & his oh so svelte companheira ... there were some other photographs of this couple which portrayed a certain greasy skin tone, so healthy and glowing as to be unbelievable, and there is our Marina hob nobbing with these folks, 14 million in projects they say but it is a drop in the bucket no? maybe I have an exaggerated notion of their wealth

she has suffered very much this Marina Silva, no need to reiterate all of it here, she considered the nunnery at one point apparently, no 'consort' in evidence at any time, a Roman Catholic though I guess, who can say if it helps or hinders? hinders I would imagine ...

you can read about Josephine Baker at Wikipedia, two thoughts of hers that caught my attention: one, a kind of relation between racial descrimination and a 'rainbow family' she made up out of a dozen orphans of different races, and two, a dancing skirt made of bananas, the literal symmetry of these two ideas reminds me ... of my mother in fact, who had similar ways of thinking :-)

and of a song, "Yes! We have no bananas. We have no bananas today," which I knew from hearing Harry Chapin's tune, didn't know the earlier vaudeville connection ... some videos of her over the years at YouTube, various coat-tail riders ...I almost remove this bit on Josephine, the black power pundits try to make her out as one thing but I see another, I see an opportunist with not much going for her except a willingness to show her tits on stage, the rainbow experiment was tainted by lack of attention (seems to me), that's not a judgement, enough said ... and anyway I did find one spiral in the bunch, can't waste that (4th pic from the last)

Lisa Jackson (as long as I am honouring black women here today :-) certainly deserves support, the logic that says Barack Obama cannot move forward at Copenhagen until Waxman/Markey gets senate ratification is ... reasonable, hard to walk around at least, so his move to have the EPA pick up the ball is an indicator that he is serious, may not wash ...but this woman sure does not look like a pushover eh? she is in my prayers - God bless her.

( Oh, Mama, can this really be the end,To be stuck inside of Mobile with the Memphis blues again. )

more to come (?) maybe ... some movies, Zabriski Point & Elvira Madigan & Pierrot Le Fou, it was probably not a good idea to start re-reading Nevil Shute's On The Beach just now :-) at Thanksgiving dinner we listened to Bob Dylan's new Christmas album (downloaded from uTorrent not purchased) ... what to say? ... never underestimate the power of a bourgeois upbringing? I guess? is that it? I wonder if maybe he is taking some kind of anti-depressants? ... feet of clay ... it's ok Bob ... whatever

a-and a whole lotta typos in this post as I discover ... the implants are wearing out? is that it? do farts have lumps? :-)

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Well, this is not how I expected to wake up this morning. After I received the news, Malia walked in and said, "Daddy, you won the Nobel Peace Prize, and it is Bo's birthday!" And then Sasha added, "Plus, we have a three-day weekend coming up." So it's good to have kids to keep things in perspective.

I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee. Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women, and all Americans, want to build -- a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. And I know that throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action -- a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.

These challenges can't be met by any one leader or any one nation. And that's why my administration has worked to establish a new era of engagement in which all nations must take responsibility for the world we seek. We cannot tolerate a world in which nuclear weapons spread to more nations and in which the terror of a nuclear holocaust endangers more people. And that's why we've begun to take concrete steps to pursue a world without nuclear weapons, because all nations have the right to pursue peaceful nuclear power, but all nations have the responsibility to demonstrate their peaceful intentions.

We cannot accept the growing threat posed by climate change, which could forever damage the world that we pass on to our children -- sowing conflict and famine; destroying coastlines and emptying cities. And that's why all nations must now accept their share of responsibility for transforming the way that we use energy.

We can't allow the differences between peoples to define the way that we see one another, and that's why we must pursue a new beginning among people of different faiths and races and religions; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.

And we must all do our part to resolve those conflicts that have caused so much pain and hardship over so many years, and that effort must include an unwavering commitment that finally realizes that the rights of all Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security in nations of their own.

We can't accept a world in which more people are denied opportunity and dignity that all people yearn for -- the ability to get an education and make a decent living; the security that you won't have to live in fear of disease or violence without hope for the future.

And even as we strive to seek a world in which conflicts are resolved peacefully and prosperity is widely shared, we have to confront the world as we know it today. I am the Commander-in-Chief of a country that's responsible for ending a war and working in another theater to confront a ruthless adversary that directly threatens the American people and our allies. I'm also aware that we are dealing with the impact of a global economic crisis that has left millions of Americans looking for work. These are concerns that I confront every day on behalf of the American people.

Some of the work confronting us will not be completed during my presidency. Some, like the elimination of nuclear weapons, may not be completed in my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone. This award is not simply about the efforts of my administration -- it's about the courageous efforts of people around the world.

And that's why this award must be shared with everyone who strives for justice and dignity -- for the young woman who marches silently in the streets on behalf of her right to be heard even in the face of beatings and bullets; for the leader imprisoned in her own home because she refuses to abandon her commitment to democracy; for the soldier who sacrificed through tour after tour of duty on behalf of someone half a world away; and for all those men and women across the world who sacrifice their safety and their freedom and sometime their lives for the cause of peace.

That has always been the cause of America. That's why the world has always looked to America. And that's why I believe America will continue to lead.

President Obama responded to the news of his Nobel Peace Prize the right way. He said he was humbled, acknowledged that the efforts for which he was honored are only beginning and pledged to see them through, not on his own but in concert with other nations.

There cannot have been unbridled joy in the White House early Friday. Mr. Obama’s aides had to expect a barrage of churlish reaction, and they got it. The left denounced the Nobel committee for giving the prize to a wartime president. The right proclaimed that Mr. Obama sold out the United States by engaging in diplomacy. Members of the dwindling band of George W. Bush loyalists also sneered — with absolutely no recognition of their own culpability — that Mr. Obama has not yet ended the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

Certainly, the prize is a (barely) implicit condemnation of Mr. Bush’s presidency. But countering the ill will Mr. Bush created around the world is one of Mr. Obama’s great achievements in less than nine months in office. Mr. Obama’s willingness to respect and work with other nations is another.

Mr. Obama has bolstered this country’s global standing by renouncing torture, this time with credibility; by pledging to close the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; by rejoining the effort to combat climate change and to rid the world of nuclear weapons; by recommitting himself to ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; and by offering to engage Iran while also insisting that it abandon its nuclear ambitions.

Mr. Obama did not seek the prize. It is a reminder of the extraordinarily high expectations for any American president — and does bring into sharp focus all that he has left to do to make the world, and this country, safer.

In Iraq, Mr. Obama is still a long way from managing an orderly withdrawal that does not leave a power vacuum and inflame a volatile region. He must decide, soon, on a strategy for Afghanistan that will do what Mr. Bush failed to do — defeat Al Qaeda and contain the Taliban — without miring American and allied troops in an endless unwinnable conflict.

To make real progress toward Mr. Obama’s declared goal of a world without nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia must both agree to deep cuts in their nuclear arsenals. If, as we suspect, Iran refuses to give up its illicit nuclear activities, Mr. Obama will have to press the rest of the world’s big powers to impose tough sanctions. He must come up with a more effective strategy to roll back North Korea’s nuclear program.

While he has made an excellent start on climate change with new regulations that finally begin to grapple with carbon emissions, the United States has to lead the way to a global agreement.

Mr. Obama is going to have to overcome narrow-minded opposition in Congress to keep his promise to close Guantánamo and deal with its inmates in a way consistent with the Constitution and American values. He has much more to do to erase the worst excesses of Mr. Bush in detaining prisoners without charges and flouting the Geneva Conventions.

Americans elected Mr. Obama because they wanted him to restore American values and leadership — and because they believed he could. The Nobel Prize, and the broad endorsement that followed, shows how many people around the world want the same thing.

PARIS — The choice of Barack Obama on Friday as the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, less than nine months into his eventful presidency, was an unexpected honor that elicited praise and puzzlement around the globe.

Normally the prize has been presented, even controversially, for accomplishment. This prize, to a 48-year-old freshman president, for “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” seemed a kind of prayer and encouragement by the Nobel committee for future endeavor and more consensual American leadership.

But the prize quickly loomed as a potential political liability — perhaps more burden than glory — for Mr. Obama. Republicans contended that he had won more for his star power and oratorical skills than for his actual achievements, and even some Democrats privately questioned whether he deserved it.

The Nobel committee’s embrace of Mr. Obama was viewed as a rejection of the unpopular tenure, in Europe especially, of his predecessor, George W. Bush.

But the committee, based in Norway, stressed that it made its decision based on Mr. Obama’s actual efforts toward nuclear disarmament as well as American engagement with the world relying more on diplomacy and dialogue.

“The question we have to ask is who has done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world,” the Nobel committee chairman, Thorbjorn Jagland, said in Oslo after the announcement. “And who has done more than Barack Obama?”

Still, Mr. Obama, who was described as “very surprised” when he received the news, said he himself was not quite convinced, adding that the award “deeply humbled” him.

“To be honest,” the president said in the Rose Garden, “I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this prize, men and women who’ve inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.”

He said, though, that he would “accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century.” Mr. Obama plans to travel to Oslo to accept the award on Dec. 10. He will donate the prize money of $1.4 million to charity, the White House said.

Mr. Obama, only the third sitting American president to win the award, is suddenly put in the company of world leaders like Mikhail S. Gorbachev, who won for helping end the cold war, and Nelson Mandela, who sought an end to apartheid.

But less prominent figures have also won the award.

The reaction inside the administration was one of restraint, perhaps reflecting the awkwardness of winning a major prize amid a worldwide debate about whether it was deserved.

Republicans in Washington, reacting in disbelief, sought to portray Mr. Obama as unworthy. In an official statement, Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said, “The real question Americans are asking is, ‘What has President Obama actually accomplished?’ “

But there was much praise as well, even if Mr. Obama’s allies worried that the prize might be a liability and even if much of the praise came from Europe, giving ammunition to conservatives who say Mr. Obama cares too much about opinion there.

President Nicolas Sarkozy of France said the award marked “America’s return to the hearts of the world’s peoples,” while Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said it was an “incentive to the president and to us all” to do more for peace.

“In a short time he has been able to set a new tone throughout the world and to create a readiness for dialogue,” she said.

For a world that at times felt pushed around by a more unilateralist Bush administration, the prize for Mr. Obama seemed wrapped in gratitude for his willingness to listen and negotiate, as well as for his positions on climate change and nuclear disarmament.

Last year’s laureate, former President Martti Ahtisaari of Finland, saw the award as an endorsement of Mr. Obama’s goal of achieving Middle East peace.

“Of course, this puts pressure on Obama,” he said. “The world expects that he will also achieve something.”

The prize, announced as official Washington — including the president — was asleep, caught the White House off guard.

The first word of it came in the form of an e-mail message to the White House staff from the White House Situation Room, which monitors events worldwide around the clock, at 5:09 a.m. It carried the subject line “item of interest.”

Shortly before 6 a.m., the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, telephoned Mr. Obama, awakening him to share the news.

“There has been no discussion, nothing at all,” said the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.

The award comes at a time of considerable challenges for the president, with few sweeping achievements so far.

On the domestic front, he is pressing Congress to overhaul the nation’s health care system. In foreign affairs, he is wrestling with his advisers over how to chart a new course in Afghanistan and has been working, with little movement, to restart peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians.

The Rose Garden appearance was an example of Mr. Obama’s heavy workload; it was squeezed into a day that already included his regular intelligence and economic briefings, a private meeting with a senator, lunch with the vice president, a major speech outlining plans for a new consumer protection agency and a strategy session on Afghanistan with his national security team.

Announcing the award, the Nobel committee cited Mr. Obama “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” and said that he had “created a new climate in international politics.”

In a four-paragraph statement, it praised Mr. Obama for his tone, his preference for negotiation and multilateral diplomacy and his vision of a cooperative world of shared values, shorn of nuclear weapons.

“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future,” the committee said. “His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.”

The other sitting American presidents to be given the award were Theodore Roosevelt in 1906, for negotiating an end to a war between Russia and Japan, and Woodrow Wilson in 1919, for the Treaty of Versailles.

Former President Jimmy Carter won in 2002 for his efforts over decades to spread peace and development. Mr. Carter called the award to Mr. Obama “a bold statement of international support for his vision and commitment.”

Former Vice President Al Gore won in 2007, sharing the prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for his work on climate change. Mr. Gore called Mr. Obama’s award “well deserved” on Friday.

Mr. Obama has generated considerable goodwill overseas, with polls showing him hugely popular, and he has made a series of speeches with arching ambition. He has vowed to pursue a world without nuclear weapons; reached out to the Muslim world, delivering a major speech in Cairo in June; and sought to restart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, at the expense of offending some of his Jewish supporters.

But he has had to devote a great deal of his time to the economic crisis and other domestic issues, and many of his policy efforts are only beginning.

In addition to the challenges in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the situation in Iraq is extremely fragile; North Korea has staged missile tests; Iran continues to enrich uranium in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions, though it recently agreed to restart nuclear talks; Israel has resisted a settlement freeze; and Saudi Arabia has refused to make new gestures toward the Israelis.

Ahmed Youssef, a Hamas spokesman, congratulated Mr. Obama but said the prize was based only on good intentions. Muhammad al-Sharif, a politically independent Gazan, was incredulous. “Has Israel stopped building the settlements?” he asked. “Has Obama achieved a Palestinian state yet?”

The Nobel committee did not tell Mr. Obama in advance of the announcement, said its chairman, Mr. Jagland. “Waking up a president in the middle of the night,” he said, “this isn’t really something you do.”

More than 40 climate protesters have climbed onto a roof at Parliament in the latest breach of security there.

The demonstrators, from Greenpeace, have unfurled banners and flags on Westminster Hall stating "change the politics, save the climate".

Police are currently talking with the demonstrators, although they are no signs they are seeking to remove them.

The latest security breach comes as MPs are set to return to Westminster on Monday after the summer recess.

The police say they have not made any arrests yet.

'Golden opportunity'

Protesters say they entered the grounds of the Palace of Westminster by using ropes and ladders to scale perimeter fencing before clambering onto the roof of Westminster Hall, the oldest part of the building.

The activists said they intended to remain on the roof all night and ask MPs to sign a climate manifesto on Monday morning.

One, 28-year old Anna Jones, said the protest would remind MPs they "simply haven't done enough to stop climate change and we need to see some action at home".

Greenpeace denied the protest was dangerous and said it wanted to "raise the temperature" about the climate change debate ahead of Parliament's return.

It said it was alarmed at the lack of attention given to the issue by the political parties, particularly Labour and the Conservatives, at their recent conferences.

Executive director John Sauven said leading politicians from all the major parties were failing to come up with concrete plans for green jobs to match their rhetoric on the subject.

"They have got to act more seriously on the issue," he told the BBC. "It is missing from the political agenda and we have got to get it on the political agenda. That is why we are here."

At its conference in Brighton, Labour announced plans for new cycle hubs at 10 mainline stations and a £10m green neighbourhood programme to help communities reduce carbon emissions.

The Conservatives, meanwhile, said that communities which agree to onshore wind farms will be able to keep revenues they generate from business rates for six years.

The Commons Climate Change Select Committee will publish a report on Monday assessing how the UK is doing on reducing emissions, meeting carbon budgets and building a low-carbon economy.

Security in Parliament was increased in 2004 after some high-profile breaches but questions have continued to be raised about protection levels.

Last year, activists from Plane Stupid occupied the roof for three hours in protest against Heathrow expansion, resulting in five activists being found guilty of trespass.

Incidents in 2004 included a group of campaigners from Greenpeace scaling Big Ben's clock tower.

EDMONTON — Last week 30 activists scaled a security fence at France's largest oil refinery, near La Havre. Inside, they clambered up towers and unfurled banners. Their message, roughly translated, was this: Get out of the oilsands; Get out of Alberta.

The refinery's owner, Total S.A., has been considering a multibillion-dollar expansion of their oilsands holdings. The CEO of the company's Canadian division said this week a decision would come within months.

After years of Canadian campaigns, activists and green organizations are increasingly targeting hearts and minds in the United States, where most of Alberta's oil is sold, and Europe, where many large oilsands investors are based.

So far, their efforts have been mixed. In Europe, where the public has largely accepted the reality of climate change, the oilsands are an occasional, if not prominent, political issue. But in the United States, where the domestic debate is focused on their own legislation, even many climate activists are only peripherally aware of the sands.

"Ninety-nine-point-nine per cent of Americans are totally unaware," said Edward Maibach, a professor at George Mason University and director of the school's Centre for Climate Change Communication.

"Coverage has been light. Public awareness of it has been lighter," said Bud Ward, the editor of the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media. Ward said he reads thousands of stories about global warming a year and only rarely comes across pieces about the oilsands.

Even among what Ward calls the "climate change literati" Alberta oil is a not top priority.

"The two big things that are really taking up attention are the climate talks in Copenhagen in December and the Clean Energy bill in the U.S. Congress," said Jonathan Hiske, a staff writer with Grist, a Seattle-based green issues magazine. "So 95 per cent of strategizing is geared toward making those things successful."

The mainstream debate about American dependence on foreign oil is more about the Middle East and Venezuela than it is about Alberta, said Hiske.

"There are huge environmental costs coming from the tarsands," he said. "But it doesn't have the same level of human rights abuses and social costs."

Rightly or wrongly, the European public is viewed as more receptive than the Americans to the anti-oilsands message, and the European oil giants more vulnerable to public pressure.

"There's no doubt in my mind that Greenpeace has identified those companies as the most vulnerable link in the tarsands," said Andrew Nikiforuk, a Calgary journalist who has written extensively about the issue.

Greenpeace Nordic has already targeted Norway's state-owned Statoil, pressuring them to withdraw their $2-billion stake in the sands. The campaign even became an issue in Norway's recent election, with the main opposition parties vowing to pull out of Alberta if they won. (They lost.)

B.P. in the U.K. and Shell in the Netherlands should expect similar campaigns, said Nikiforuk.

"I think what Greenpeace has started now is only the beginning of a bigger movement against the oilsands and the oil companies," said Claude Turmes, a Green Party member of the European Parliament from Luxembourg. Turmes said the Greens and other parties have been working on legislation that would prevent European companies from investing in the oilsands or from shipping oilsands fuel to Europe.

"The pressure against oilsands is just starting," he said.

Not everyone, though, believes the campaign will pay dividends.

"They're quite used to this kind of opposition around the world, these companies, aren't they?" said Andrew Clark said, a New York-based business correspondent for London's Guardian newspaper.

Clark said there would likely have to be a legitimate business rationale for any of the oil giants to pull out of Alberta. "As far as I can see they (the oil companies) only tend to act when commercial and environmental issues coincide."

Nor is the pressure anything new. Shell, for one, has major operations in Nigeria, where workers are routinely kidnapped and equipment bombed.

"A few people waving placards in Alberta," Clark said, "are not likely to push them off their stools."

Here was an opportunity to cut himself free, in a stroke, from the baggage that’s weighed his presidency down — the implausible expectations, the utopian dreams, the messianic hoo-ha.

Here was a place to draw a clean line between himself and all the overzealous Obamaphiles, at home and abroad, who poured their post-Christian, post-Marxist yearnings into the vessel of his 2008 campaign.

Here was a chance to establish himself, definitively, as an American president — too self-confident to accept an unearned accolade, and too instinctively democratic to go along with European humbug.

He didn’t take it. Instead, he took the Nobel Peace Prize.

Big mistake.

People have argued that you can’t turn down a Nobel. Please. Of course you can. Obama is a gifted rhetorician with world-class speechwriters. All he would have needed was a simple, graceful statement emphasizing the impossibility of accepting such an honor during his first year in office, with America’s armed forces still deep in two unfinished wars.

Would the world have been offended? Well, to start with, the prize isn’t given out by an imaginary “world community.” It’s voted on and handed out by a committee of five obscure Norwegians. So turning it down would have been a slap in the face, yes, to Thorbjorn Jagland, Kaci Kullmann Five, Sissel Marie Ronbeck, Inger-Marie Ytterhorn and Agot Valle. But it wouldn’t have been a slap in the face to the Europeans or the Africans, to Moscow or Beijing, or to any other population or great power that an American president should fret about offending.

In any case, it will be far more offensive when Obama takes the stage in Oslo this November instead of Morgan Tsvangirai, Zimbabwe’s heroic opposition leader; or Thich Quang Do, the Buddhist monk and critic of Vietnam’s authoritarian regime; or Rebiya Kadeer, exiled from China for her labors on behalf of the oppressed Uighur minority; or anyone who has courted death this year protesting for democracy in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

True, Obama didn’t ask for this. It was obvious, from his halting delivery and slightly shamefaced air last Friday, that he wishes the Nobel committee hadn’t put him in this spot.

But he still wasn’t brave enough to tell it no.

Obama gains nothing from the prize. No domestic constituency will become more favorably disposed to him because five Norwegians think he’s already changed the world — and the Republicans were just handed the punch line for an easy recession-era attack ad. (To quote the Democratic strategist Joe Trippi, anticipating the 30-second spots to come: “He got a Nobel Prize. What did you get? A pink slip.”)

Overseas, there was nobody, from Paris to Peshawar, who woke up Friday more disposed to work with the United States because of the Nobel committee’s decision — and plenty of more seasoned statesman who woke up laughing. (Vladimir Putin probably hasn’t snickered this much since John McCain tried to persuade Americans that “we are all Georgians” during last year’s weeklong war.)

Meanwhile, the prize makes every foreign-policy problem Obama faces seem ever so slightly more burdensome. Now he’s the Nobel laureate who has to choose between escalating a counterinsurgency in Afghanistan or ceding ground to a theocratic mafia. He’s the Nobel laureate who’ll either have to authorize military strikes against Iran or construct an effective, cold-war-style deterrence system for the Middle East. He’s the Nobel laureate who’ll probably fail, like every U.S. president before him, to prod Israelis and Palestinians toward a comprehensive settlement.

At the same time, the prize leaves Obama more open to ridicule. It confirms, as a defining narrative of his presidency, the gap between his supporters’ cloud-cuckoo-land expectations and the inevitable disappointments of reality. It dovetails perfectly with the recent “Saturday Night Live” sketch in which he was depicted boasting about a year’s worth of nonaccomplishments. And it revives and ratifies John McCain’s only successful campaign gambit — his portrayal of Obama as “the world’s biggest celebrity,” famous more for being famous than for any concrete political accomplishment.

Great achievements may still await our Nobel president. If Obama goes from strength to strength, then this travesty will be remembered as a footnote to his administration, rather than a defining moment.

But by accepting the prize, he’s made failure, if and when it comes, that much more embarrassing and difficult to bear. What’s more, he’s etched in stone the phrase with which critics will dismiss his presidency.

Jonathan Wheatley, the FT’s Brazil correspondent, interviewed Marina Silva in her office in Brazil’s Senate on September 18. Ms Silva, who was elected to the Senate for the first time in 1994, was Brazil’s environment minister between January 2003 and May 2008, when she left in frustration at what she saw as the failure of other ministries to give due concern to environmental issues. She was a founder member in 1980 of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s leftwing Workers’ Party (PT) but left the party in August this year at the height of a corruption scandal involving José Sarney, president of the Senate, after Mr Lula da Silva threw his support behind Mr Sarney, a former political adversary. She has since joined the Green Party and is widely expected to run as its candidate in presidential elections next October.

FT: What do you expect of the Copenhagen meeting? What should Brazil demand of developed nations and what should it hope to achieve?

MS: First, I think we need to have a political posture that is coherent with what we want to demand. This means we should first make the effort internally to ensure that Brazil is committed to targets but that these should be global targets, not just for reducing deforestation but covering all sectors that produce emissions. How this will be done, how we will do the distribution, is something that needs to be worked on internally with transparency, involving the government, society, businesses and academia. I think this is a sine qua non.

Another aspect is that we have to reduce emissions in a way that ensures that temperatures rise by a maximum of two degrees, meaning a maximum of 450 particles per million [the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere regarded as a threshold beyond which global warming becomes irreversible]. This means a big effort by developed countries. And the architecture necessary to make this possible for developed countries should also allow emerging countries to make their contribution, so that we can reach this target at the global level and, by 2020, have a very strong signal that we are going to be able to achieve this by the middle of the century.

There is often a mistaken view put forward in these debates that it is easier to make reductions by reducing deforestation than by other mechanisms. Obviously, reducing deforestation is fundamental, this is not in question. It has to be reduced, yes. But this doesn’t mean it is easy. It is just as difficult [as other means of reducing emissions]. And it presupposes changing the model of development for developing countries. In the same way that it is hard for rich countries to alter their energy systems from fossil fuels to renewable fuels, it is hard for developing countries to change their model of development. This has a cost. People often argue [reducing deforestation] is easier because the cost is less, to achieve reductions, but this is not the way it should be thought about. It’s not that there is a lower cost or that for this reason we should think only about deforestation. We need to think about global emissions in general to achieve global results. That’s why I argue that Brazil has to have a global target and that we should have commitments that achieve this reduction by the middle of the century. Obviously this will be made easier if we have a good architecture in place by 2020 at the latest.

MS: I think, yes, there should be support from developed countries not only in terms of finance but also to find a mechanism that makes it possible to change the model of development, and also transfer of technology. This is important. It is not only a matter of resources. Now, this shouldn’t be expressed as a pre-condition for doing anything. It should be expressed as a means of doing more than we would do with our own resources alone. But there should be a priority in terms of internal resources that from the outset signals Brazil’s commitment to what it wants to reduce. It should not be a question of getting external funding first in order to be able to start to do anything.

FT: Is Brazil’s position more conciliatory than that of other developing countries? China and India seem to be demanding more in return.

MS: I think Brazil is the country that brings together the best conditions to achieve change in the right direction, which means allocating the available resources with clear priorities, because resources are not abundant. And obviously the other countries that resist this position have political problems in relation to this vision. The right to development is legitimate, to meet basic needs, but the demand should not be to continue with the same rate of emissions. The demand should be to find a way of reducing emissions without this meaning that you perpetuate degrading conditions of poverty in those countries. This is a legitimate concern.

In the case of Brazil obviously it is possible to find a compromise between reducing emissions and development to improve living standards and meet basic needs. In other words Brazil can help, among the developing nations, to lead a process that takes the emerging nations from a passive position to a proactive position in terms of each making their own internal efforts and by doing so gain the credentials to demand support in terms of resources and technology transfer. So Brazil has clearly become politically more proactive. But I still believe it could be more proactive especially if it arrives in Copenhagen with a proposal that includes a clear commitment from Brazil in terms of global targets, for all sectors, deforestation, industry, energy and so on.

FT: And what should change in the development model, for Brazil and other emerging nations?

MS: It’s perhaps easier to talk about Brazil because I don’t want to talk about abstracts in other countries that I don’t know so well. But obviously what I say about Brazil also has applications for the others.

In terms of the model of development, obviously, in the first place, it must be clear that the energy systems of these countries cannot follow the same course as that of the developed countries. We have to understand that if developed nations need to move from fossil to renewable fuels, then in our case we must put the emphasis very clearly from now on renewable fuels.

Obviously, in the reality of Brazil, this seems to be easier, because we have very great potential for clean, safe and diversified energy sources, such as wind, solar energy, biomass and hydroelectricity, which is our greatest potential. But the basic reality remains the same: how to replace fossil fuels with renewable fuels in a process of decarbonisation of the economies of all countries.

And this sustainable model also pre-supposes efforts in two directions that are apparently contradictory. What do you do to diminish actions that cause climate change through greenhouse gas emissions and degrade the environment? Because it’s not just a matter of emissions. Changing the climate system is the Armageddon of the environmental crisis, but there are other problems, such as diversity, of contamination of water resources. Changing the model pre-supposes looking at the whole system. So what do you do to reduce actions that cause environmental damage and diminish the environmental services available from natural resources, and at the same time limit as much as possible the undesirable effects of this process. What are the undesirable effects? They come from the idea that, to reduce emissions and loss of diversity and degradation of air and water, you can no longer produce anything, that you have to accept losses in economic terms, that people stop having access to goods and services that are fundamental. I’m not talking about the exaggerated consumption that you see around the world today, no, I mean [consumption] that allows people quality of life, dignity, happiness.

In the reality of Brazil in my view this means making the most of this window of opportunity that we still have, of at least 20, 30 or 40 years, to undergo a transition. Instead of the low intensity ranching that we have in Brazil, you have to move to an intensive model, using high technology, knowledge, relying on technological innovation to make better use of the available land and put less pressure on the forests. This also applies to other sectors of agriculture and even to infrastructure. You have to evaluate the ability of eco-systems to support [human activity] in a perspective that includes the environmental services that they provide to the planet as a whole.

Here in Brazil they are essential services and if they are jeopardised we will suffer economic damage that we do not even have the capacity to repair, as is the case with rainfall. A good part of the rain that falls on the south, south-east and centre-west of Brazil is produced in the Amazon region, according to studies being carried out by INPE [the Brazilian aerospace research institute], and if the Amazon is destroyed we could end up with a desert.

So people have to see reducing deforestation as a strategic task from the internal point of view and from the global point of view as something strategic too, because if we do our homework 100 per cent and the rest of the world doesn’t, and the Amazon is damaged, we will suffer. So changes to the development model have to take place in all sectors, accompanied by production of knowledge and technological innovation and above all by a social pact, a social agreement that leads to a commitment that these changes will be persistent – a basic platform of commitment to change, to a diversified, clean energy system, sustainable agriculture and ranching, industry that is constantly modernising in search of new production models – all this being done to achieve the transition to a new economy.

FT: Just at the moment when all this is being discussed Brazil has discovered the pre-salt [potentially huge off-shore oil fields] and is close to becoming a major producer of fossil fuels. Even without the pre-salt Brazil is an increasingly industrialised country. How do you change a development model in the face of such powerful imperatives?

MS: I’ll come to the pre-salt in a moment but in relation to industrialisation, perhaps the modernisation of industries already established in developed countries and the change in the way they produce energy could help developing countries to find a way in which their still ongoing process of industrialisation could make the transition to a new form. This is an equation facing not only Brazil but also other countries. It is possible through technological innovation to have another type of industry that is not necessarily based on the same practices that we have seen up to now. That is why we also talk about [emissions] reductions from industry.

As regards the pre-salt, it is understood around the world that there is no way to do without fossil fuels, anywhere in the world. Obviously Brazil is no different. What is different is the use of this source of energy. It is how you leverage this for the production of new energy sources. This means second generation biofuels that could be accelerated as much as possible to be able to replace fossil fuels. Twenty years from now when the pre-salt has been exploited, if we already have the possibility of substituting oil with other energy sources, I don’t see why we should deify oil as a source of wealth that we can’t do without in benefit of the planet. But for this we need to replace it, or use it until we are able to find a replacement, which is the effort that should be made not only by Brazil but by the whole world.

FT: So how would you leverage the resources of the pre-salt to do that?

MS: I’m not only talking about resources of the pre-salt, I mean in general including the pre-salt, that we should use the most advanced technology possible so that while we are exploiting the pre-salt we reduce the emissions caused by doing so. And another thing is investing heavily in innovation and technological development that leads to a replacement of the model itself. You will be using an energy source in the expectation of its substitution. This is something that should be done, that needs to be done by Brazil in relation to the pre-salt and to what we are doing today. You can’t imagine that this resource is irreplaceable and that we will exploit it for as long as it lasts. No, you have to work on its substitution producing the necessary knowledge and the necessary alternatives for various sectors including energy that leads to the substitution of fossil fuels.

FT: Are there any issues that Brazil will insist on at Copenhagen?

MS: The Brazilian government has not yet had this discussion with society. It is still a very internal discussion, involving the environment ministry, the foreign ministry and the ministry of science and technology. And obviously it is fundamental that there should be the involvement of different sectors of society, of Congress itself, because there is enormous interest in the formation of the Brazilian position.

This is especially true because during the past few years Brazil, which previously had a rather reactive position, since 2006, when I was still in the government, this position began to change to one of accepting targets. It began in Nairobi, then in Bali… it began in Montreal when we presented the first idea that forests should be taken into consideration by the Commission [the international Commission on Climate Change and Development]. Then in 2006 in Nairobi we presented a proposal to be included in the Commission and it was accepted. And then in Bali, Brazil presented concretely the idea of reducing emissions caused by deforestation and of creating a mechanism to make this reportable, quantifiable and so on, up to the possibility of accepting targets.

It’s this possibility of accepting targets that is being discussed now and not just regarding deforestation but targets for all sectors. This discussion has not been made public and I think it is fundamental that there should be a process of participation of social movements, of academia, of Congress, of companies, of all different sectors so that this position isn’t only a position of the Brazilian government presented in Copenhagen as a surprise to Brazilian society, but that the position should reflect the will of the Brazilian people, with their commitment to it so that this can facilitate negotiations in Copenhagen, both for the rich countries, which have always argued that it is difficult for them to accept more daring targets while the developing countries are unwilling, and for the developing countries themselves. I think that if Brazil makes a commitment it will help, or at least I hope it will, to allow China and India, South Africa and Mexico to move to a proposal along the same lines.

FT: So Brazil shouldn’t go to Copenhagen with a sealed envelope …

MS: Well, I can’t say something like that will happen because there is still time for this discussion to take place. Obviously this is something I am asking for. But the problem is that, we know, Minister Amorim [Celso Amorim, foreign minister] gave an interview that was very well received by Brazilian society saying that Brazil could deliver a positive surprise. But I don’t think the right thing is to deliver surprises, good ones or bad ones. We should be committed to the proposal we want to take to Copenhagen and to what we want to construct. And I don’t think this commitment should be made by the government alone to Brazilian society, it should be made by Brazilian society.

FT: Might Brazil try to surprise in Copenhagen to achieve a more advantageous outcome?

MS: Well, the process of diplomatic negotiation in events like this involves very little in the way of surprises. Obviously there is always room for discussion and the negotiators have some room for manoeuvre, but in my view there is much more room for negotiation if proposals are constructed in a transparent manner with the backing of public opinion. And if the debate is built up over time in various places. I think the environmental crisis, the size of the problem is so great that there is little room for the national or international public to be surprised by a group of luminaries. This has to be a commitment undertaken by all of us, and society has given its approval for governments to be a bit more daring. Here in Brazil opinion polls suggest very clearly the strong involvement of the people with these themes and recent polls show that people even prefer to pay a bit more to protect the environment. More than 90 per cent of people say they prefer to pay a bit more for their meat or gains or any product as long as this protects the environment. And this is a fantastic political energy that can’t be thrown away at a time of negotiations like this.

FT: Do you think there will be an agreement on use of forests at Copenhagen, on a mechanism to allow development while leaving forests intact?

MS: I hope so. I think we have lost a lot of time excluding forests from this process. I had the good fortune to help in the process of getting them included during the time I was at the ministry and I don’t think there is any more time for them still to be excluded.

What is the structure that will be thought up to produce an adequate contribution to the reduction of emissions by forests? This is a construction that is being thought about here in Brazil as well, and I have taken part in some discussions that I have found very interesting, but obviously it will involve all the countries that have tropical forests and is not something that can be done alone. But obviously Brazil, as home to the biggest tropical forest, will have a greater responsibility. And it’s no coincidence that it was Brazil that helped to put forests back into the ambit of the Convention [the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]. Obviously the other countries that took part in the debate also helped.

FT: What type of measures would be included in this mechanism?

MS: This is a discussion that is still going on and has had a greater degree of participation from sectors of society. What kind of mechanism, to encourage integrated participation by the federal and state governments. The state governments that are home to forests think the mechanism should involve direct negotiation with them. There is a political construction that is under way. In my view it would be best to have action by the federal government that takes a lead while allowing state governments also to seek funding. We created for example the Amazon Fund that has raised funds from Norway. It is a voluntary fund, obviously, that shows how you might have a mixed system between voluntary donations that are not conditional on [carbon] credits but also with the possibility of credits. This is the kind of mixed system that is being thought about.

FT: And what should be the role of the public and private sectors in providing incentives to leave forests intact?

MS: It can be mixed, involving both. The Norwegian involvement is via the public sector but there is nothing to stop the private sector being involved too.

FT: I mean at the level of the forest, in terms of activity.

MS: Ah, yes, I think obviously the private sector can be involved there too. We are talking about alternatives to the destruction of the forest. By law landowners have the right to use 20 per cent of their properties. The mechanism that allows this non-use for deforestation is excellent for other activities. There can be payment for environmental services, you can have investment in sustainable forest management, that creates jobs and still captures carbon dioxide with the forest intact.

And you can favour local communities, who preserve the forest all their lives. Often the mechanisms don’t include these communities. Incentives go to those who cut down the forest and will be able to cut down more, and those who always preserved the forest are excluded by the mechanism which considers the forest a permanent stock. For the communities, the forest is their only asset twice over, or three times, because it is the forest, biodiversity, environmental services, emissions reduction and so on, and they don’t get any kind of support.

FT: Describe for me what Brazil has done to reduce the rate of deforestation.

MS: When we arrived in government in 2003, deforestation had been growing since 2001. We saw that the trend was for this to continue, with investments and so on, but also that the lack of governance in the Amazon region was very great. So we decided it was no longer possible to continue with an ad hoc response to deforestation and that there should be an integrated approach involving three structured axes of activities: combating illegal activities; land registration; and support for sustainable productive activities.

In other words you fight illegality, put an end to the indefinition over land use through land registry, economic zoning, deciding which land can be used for production and consolidating that production but at the same time creating conservation areas and indian reserves, creating productive forests through concessions for forest use and in this way you put an end to the idea that there is a frontier that can go on expanding. And you provide support for sustainable productive activities. So as you fight illegal activities you create a series of alternative possibilities for the people who live in the region. There are about 24m people. So you have to substitute this with other activities, such as forest management, tourism, certified ranching, certified grain farming, the use of the components of biodiversity – unfortunately under the Convention on Biological Diversity the rich countries still don’t support a programme of access to pay for sharing the components of biodiversity.

So the plan presupposes these three axes. And since the approach to preventing deforestation is integrated with fighting illegality, land demarcation and creating new practices, it was fundamental that this approach should also be constructed in an integrated manner by the government, so that instead of involving just the environment ministry it should include all the ministries concerned. So we created a plan working from the outset with 13 ministries. And, clearly, as the process unfolded, the sectors responsible for land demarcation and support for productive activities advanced much less than they should have done. Where progress was made was much more in the area of fighting illegal practices.

By the end of 2007 we managed to reduce deforestation by 57 per cent, reversing a process that in 2004 had reached 27,000 square kilometres, the second biggest year of deforestation – the biggest had been 29,000 in 2004 to 2005. In 2006 it fell to 18,000, then in 2007 to 12,000, and then it showed signs of increasing again at the end of 2007. In early 2008 new measures were taken, still in the area of command and control, of fighting illegality. Why did deforestation threaten to rise again, by 30 or 40 per cent? Because those axes that were fundamental, land demarcation and support for sustainable activities, didn’t move forward with the same priority as actions to fight illegality. Even so, by reinforcing the measures that denied credit to illegal activities and suspended any licence to deforest from the 36 municipalities that did most deforestation and by criminalising all those involved in the illegal productive chain, the rate of deforestation fell again and is still falling.

The problem, or rather the question to be examined, is that this was only possible because, even with the difficulty of getting the other sectors to do their part, there was an integrated approach with the environment ministry, the justice ministry and the defence ministry and strong transparency before the public, because there is a monitoring system by satellite that is very efficient. Thanks to this transparency we were able to gain support for the government’s actions. Even after my resignation, which was at a time when people were pressing for the measures to be reversed, when I left, public opinion had access to the information and people gave their support to our actions. So in the case of Brazil, our experience is of a transversal approach to deforestation involving fighting illegality, the land question and at the same time creating new opportunities, and total transparency so that society can give its support to what is done.

FT: And how does infrastructure development fit in with this?

MS: It fits in as part of the view that we should support sustainable productive activities. Infrastructure is there to support sustainable development. And if it exists to support sustainable development it cannot be in itself something unsustainable. You have to reduce damage as much as possible, you have to ensure that ecosystems have the ability to support it, you have to ensure cultural sustainability respecting local populations. So the idea of sustainable development doesn’t apply just to one or other aspect. It applies to the whole agenda that involves the economic, social and cultural dynamic.

FT: It was said that you left the ministry frustrated with the lack of engagement with environmental issues by other parts of the government. Has anything changed?

MS: No, unfortunately not. The ministries of agriculture, energy and transport have a lot of difficulty in understanding this question. There is a vision still stuck in the twentieth and nineteenth centuries, thinking it is possible to repeat the same pattern as in the past, which has been left behind. And it has been left behind not just for ethical reasons or because we think we should do things differently. It has been left behind because it is out of date technologically. Because technologies and practices exist to replace predatory practices.

The problem is that people don’t calculate the environmental costs. If you don’t do things correctly the cost will be greater than the apparent gain to be had from doing things in a less careful way. And the fact of not doing things in a careful way, to make things quicker, is also a mistake because more often than not things are done and then, with every reason, [members of] society turn to the courts, and works are stopped by the courts and end up taking longer to complete.

While I was in the government I worked a lot on restructuring the [environmental] licensing system, to give technical quality to the evaluation of projects, and the licences were given. They just weren’t given without the necessary demands. People may say that public works didn’t move forward. It’s not that they didn’t move, they just didn’t move in the incorrect way that they had done before. Obviously there was a lot of tension, when in fact there should have been a convergence that, in the same way that the environment ministry understands that energy is needed, roads are needed, development is needed, the other ministries also have to understand that you need to protect natural resources. And sometimes people tried to relativise the demands of the environmental sector in an attempt to favour, in quotation marks, the other sectors.

FT: What does Brazil need to do then to balance development with the environment?

MS: Brazil needs to do what all countries need to do. Brazil and the other countries in the world need to make the environment and development part of the same equation and not persist in thinking that one is in opposition to the other. Because there won’t be any development if we don’t resolve the serious environmental problems that the world is facing. The planet is already in the red in terms of its capacity to regenerate, according to recent studies, by 30 per cent. If we are unable to respond to this, evidently we are condemning ourselves. So Brazil needs to understand that there is still time to move from an unsustainable model to a sustainable model. There is no example in the world to be followed. There will only be those who are inclined to lead by example. And what Brazil needs to do, with the conditions that it has, is to lead by example.

FT: What role should the public and private sectors be taking in this?

MS: The private sector is still very incipient. I think the state has to use the means at its disposal to try to leverage this process. And when the state maintains an ambiguous posture, even in relation to the law, and gives signs of going backwards as a result of pressure from groups that don’t have a strategic view of what is happening, it gives mixed signals the whole time. Instead of passing the exam it spends the whole time giving way and changing the exam. This is the problem.

But the state shouldn’t have the pretension of thinking it can do everything alone for society. It’s time to integrate actions of the state, of companies, of society, above all of public opinion, as I said before, that is able to put demands before all governments. Some things cannot be the result of the will of the particular party that is in government. It is a desire of Brazilian society not to have a dirty energy system and to enlarge it in a clean, safe diversified way. That should be a commitment of all governments whatever the party in power. It should be a commitment of all governments of any party not to allow an increase in deforestation in the Amazon or the cerrado or elsewhere. There should be a commitment that in the short political spans of each government there should be long-term undertakings that cannot be abandoned simply for short-term concerns.

MS: I don’t want to talk in the position of a candidate. I want to register that in Brazil this anticipation [of the election campaign] is very negative. I think President Lula anticipated this discussion and this is not good for the country. Every two years there is an election and as soon as one is over people begin talking about the next one. In my opinion what needs to happen in 2010 is there should be a commitment to this basic, long-term platform by all candidates. Because Brazilian society is making this a point of reference. Until very recently all the indications were that the debate would take the traditional form – growth, how to achieve growth, without thinking about development as part of a process that is subject to changing paradigms, provoking reflections on the familiar path of economic, social and cultural development in Brazil and around the world. What needs to happen in these elections is a debate that allows society to make its own commitment to these medium and long-term changes. There has to be a social pact that emerges from the elections so that the next government feels it has a mandate, and that Congress is committed to those priorities chosen by society as a basic platform for the country, independently of who will be in government.

FT: Would your candidacy change the current prospect of a contest between two opposing candidates?

MS: I think that in a two-round election [if no candidate wins an outright majority the two leading candidates go into a second round] it is legitimate that we should have various candidacies. We don’t need to have primaries in a two-round election, as if there were just two parties. No, the projects, ideas, candidates should be presented to the population to allow for political alignments so that positions are clear. And I hope the election won’t be a plebiscite [to approve or reject the Lula government] but an election in which people are able to make their choices and that men and women who are free to vote for whomever they want are not limited to a choice between the government candidate and a candidate from the [centrist opposition] PSDB. No, people should feel free to make other choices.

FT: What do you think of the state of politics in Brazil, is it keeping pace with changes in other areas?

MS: Brazil needs political reform to create a political system capable of promoting changes that match the magnitude of the challenges we face. With the political structure we have now, we will simply perpetuate the ills that we have today, in relation to Congress and to the executive.

FT: How can that be done?

MS: It can be done by stating very clearly in the campaign next year that there is a need for political reform to get out of this prison, where the parties have become machines for gaining power. When in fact they can be spaces for discussing policies and for interaction with the living nucleuses of society – businesses, social movements, academics, people who don’t want to join a political party. The parties will have to learn to interact with these living nucleuses to establish a network of relationships. Political parties have to be able to receive contributions from society and also be changed by movements in society.

FT: Are you worried about a diminution of democracy?

MS: I think in the reality of Brazil, this risk has been overcome. One of the great conquests that we have had over the past 16 years is to have economic stability, President Lula was able to do this too with income distribution and, obviously, with the consolidation of Brazilian democracy. I think this has matured to a point where any movement in the other direction won’t happen.

The problem is that politics is losing is significance as the locus where democracy is strengthened. When politics and politicians lose their place before society as a legitimate sphere for the intermediation of interests, this ends up weakening the force of the democratic process of choice, and people begin to think that everyone can resolve things in their own way without the legitimate intermediation done by politics. It’s legitimate that everyone has their interests and defends them. What is not legitimate is that some people think they can defend their interests in illegal and illegitimate ways and without the proper intermediation of institutions. Nor can the institutions do without the contribution of people who are committed to justice, truth, freedom and rights, nor can the people do without the institutions that make these things possible.

Politics has to be a creative and affirmative process. You just can’t make the classical divisions between left, right and centre. There has to be something that appeals to all sectors. People from all parties and from all social classes need pure air, fertile land, clean drinking water, biodiversity – this is a struggle that by definition is inclusive. And this may help us to get out of this commonplace, where to make a political affirmation you have to be always deconstructing. You have to believe in the possibility that some things can also be conserved. Because unless you conserve certain processes you can’t defend a system, a structure, and I think this could also lead to a change in political behaviour.

Another thing that environmentalism puts in place, in Brazil at least, is a new form of militancy, that involves the young, different sectors of society, where people are ready to participate in a process to promote their visions of the world, of the future. You begin to have an anticipatory process, not limited only to health and education, all of which is important, but they want to know as well if their children will have the same things in terms of natural goods and services in the future.

FT: Are people already active in this way?

MS: Some people are, but just showing that they are concerned is already very good energy to work with. Because sometimes politicians are afraid to reflect. They prefer to administer the familiar, consolidated spaces where power operates. And changing the model of development pre-supposes risk, including in relation to public opinion. I think that unfortunately the parties and Congress, and the executive, are trapped in the status quo and are incapable of the vision needed to make the change.

NEW YORK, Oct. 10 -- Today in the Principality of Monaco, the Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation held its illustrious second annual awards ceremony at the Grimaldi Forum Monaco. HSH Prince Albert recognized three leading international figures, including Boston's Professor Edward Osborne Wilson, for their lifelong efforts to preserve the planet, specific to his eponymous Foundation's three focus areas: climate change, biodiversity and water.

Professor Wilson was honored for his lifelong contribution to protecting the world's biodiversity. During his acceptance of the award which consists of a specially designed trophy and 40,000 euros, he said we have only just begun to explore Earth's biodiversity. "The 21st century, I believe, is going to be known as the Century of the Environment, and in science as the Century of Biology. This is the time that we will either settle down as a species or completely wreck the planet.

"There has been proportionately much less attention on the living environment, and especially the diversity of life, biodiversity, defined as the totality of ecosystems, the species that compose them, and the genes that prescribe the traits of the species that compose each of the ecosystems in turn," he said.

"That great resource has taken billions of years to evolve. Our lives depend on it, because we are first and above all things a biological species living in a biological world. Our best estimates are that about 1.8 million species are now known to science. But the search for unknown species has just begun. When all of the small invertebrates of the sea and land are fully explored the number could easily exceed 20 million species. The truth is that we live on a little known planet."

A two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction, Wilson is world-renowned for his career as a scientist and advocacy for environmentalism. He is a Pellegrino University Research Professor Emeritus and Honorary Curator in Entomology at the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University and is a Humanist Laureate of the International Academy of Humanism.

His most ambitious - and current - undertaking, which he both conceived and named, is the "Encyclopedia of Life" (www.eol.org), a web-based program indexing every species known to man.

"The project, recently launched by a consortium including the Smithsonian Institution, Harvard University, The Field Museum of Chicago, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility in Copenhagen, and the Marine Biological Laboratory, is an electronic encyclopedia that will have an indefinitely expandable page for each and every species of animal, plant and microorganism," said Professor Wilson.

"Each species will be illustrated with multiple views or parts of the genome of the type specimen or other authenticated specimen, and a diagnosis; and into the page will go everything known about the species, with new information added as it is acquired. The Encyclopedia of Life is now underway with up to $50 million pledged by the MacArthur and Sloan Foundations," he said.

Marina Silva of Brazil was presented with the Foundation's award for her work in support of the Brazilian rainforests. Ms. Silva is a Brazilian environmentalist and politician, who served as a senator before becoming an environmental minister in 2003. She led demonstrations with Chico Mendes to warn against deforestation and the removal of forest communities from traditional locations. As a native Amazonian and a senator, she built support for the environmental protection of the reserves as well as for social justice and sustainable development in the region. During her time as Senator, deforestation decreased by 59% from 2004 to 2007.

Pan Yue of China was honored for his contribution to water conservation. With a strong background in journalism and government administration, he is currently Vice Minister of China's Ministry of Environmental Protection. He has tackled some of China's biggest industries over pollution, forcing them to clean up and believes that access to clean water is the most urgent environmental problem because it is the bloodline for industrialization, urbanization and survival. In 2008 the Foundation's award recipients were Arctic explorer Alain Hubert, primatologist and conservationist Dr. Jane Goodall and Indian environmentalist and political activist Sunita Narain.

The awards ceremony, attended by 1500 guests, was preceded by the world premiere of the much-anticipated film, OCEANS, from Academy Award-nominated producer Jacques Perrin and Jacques Cluzaud. A true technological and scientific adventure, OCEANS from Disneynature is the breathtaking result of three years of filming under the deep seas around the globe. The film is not only a moving account of the wonders of nature but also an alarming report on the dangers that threaten it. The film will première in the United States on Earth Day, April 22, 2010.

About The Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation:The Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation was established in 2006 by HSH Prince Albert to continue the Principality of Monaco's legacy of environmental stewardship and its commitment to conserve and preserve the world's natural environment and resources, by supporting sustainable and ethical projects especially in the Mediterranean Basin, the Polar regions and the world's least developed countries. Its focus is on three main challenges: climate change and developing renewable energies; combating the loss of biodiversity; and water management and fighting desertification. In just three years, the Foundation has extended its international outreach by opening chapters in Europe (France, Switzerland, the UK, Italy and Germany), in Canada and, in 2008, the United States of America. Since its inception, 95+ projects have benefited from Foundation grants totaling more than $20 million. Learn more at www.pa2f.org.

WASHINGTON — Unwilling to wait for Congress to act, the Obama administration announced on Wednesday that it was moving forward on new rules to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from hundreds of power plants and large industrial facilities.

President Obama has said that he prefers a comprehensive legislative approach to regulating emissions and stemming global warming, not a piecemeal application of rules, and that he is deeply committed to passage of a climate bill this year.

But he has authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to begin moving toward regulation, which could goad lawmakers into reaching an agreement. It could also provide evidence of the United States’ seriousness as negotiators prepare for United Nations talks in Copenhagen in December intended to produce an international agreement to combat global warming.

“We are not going to continue with business as usual,” Lisa P. Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator, said Wednesday in a conference call with reporters. “We have the tools and the technology to move forward today, and we are using them.”

The proposed rules, which could take effect as early as 2011, would place the greatest burden on 400 power plants, new ones and those undergoing substantial renovation, by requiring them to prove that they have applied the best available technology to reduce emissions or face penalties.

Ms. Jackson described the proposal as a common-sense rule tailored to apply to only the largest facilities — those that emit at least 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year — which are responsible for nearly 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.

The move was timed to come on the same day that two Democratic senators, John F. Kerry of Massachusetts and Barbara Boxer of California, introduced global warming and energy legislation that faces a steep climb to passage this year.

The prospect of E.P.A. regulation of greenhouse gas emissions has generated fear and deep divisions within American industry. Some major utilities, oil companies and other heavy emitters are working closely with Congress to ensure that a climate bill would circumvent E.P.A. regulation by substituting a market-based cap-and-trade system. Others, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, have worked against legislation and threatened to sue if the E.P.A. tries to impose controls on emissions of heat-trapping gases.

Ms. Jackson said the proposed rule had been written to exempt small businesses, farms, large office buildings and other relatively small sources of carbon dioxide emissions. But under the rule proposed Wednesday, the E.P.A. would assume authority for the greenhouse gas emissions of 14,000 coal-burning power plants, refineries and big industrial complexes that produce most of the nation’s greenhouse gas pollution.

The proposal will go through several months of drafting and public comment and faces likely litigation from industry and perhaps from environmentalists or citizen groups.

A typical coal-burning power plant emits several million tons of carbon dioxide a year. The 25,000-ton limit is comparable to the emissions from burning 131 rail cars of coal or the annual energy use of about 2,200 homes, according to the Environmental Defense Fund.

Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma and an opponent of global warming legislation, called the proposed rule “a backdoor energy tax” that circumvents Congress and violates the terms of the Clean Air Act.

Scott Segal, a utility lobbyist with the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani in Washington, said the rule should not be used to rush Congress into passing a poorly drafted bill.

But he also said that the proposal “strengthens the president’s negotiating hand in Copenhagen.”

“Even if the Senate does not act,” Mr. Segal said, “he can legitimately say to other nations, ‘We are taking action on a unilateral basis. What are you doing?’ ”

The proposal, long anticipated and highly controversial, is the government’s first step toward regulating greenhouse gases from stationary sources. The E.P.A. has already proposed an ambitious program to restrict such emissions from cars and trucks. The agency published the proposed vehicle emission rule this month; it is expected to take effect next spring.

Ms. Jackson’s proposal would require facilities emitting at least 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide and five other pollutants a year to obtain construction and operating permits. The other gases are methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride.

The threshold is 100 times higher than that required for other types of pollutants like sulfur dioxide that have more acute health and environmental effects.

Ms. Jackson said that while the proposed rule would affect about 14,000 large sources of carbon dioxide, most were already subject to clean-air permitting requirements because they emit other pollutants.

By raising the standard to 25,000 tons, the new rule exempts millions of smaller sources of carbon dioxide emissions like bakeries, soft drink bottlers, dry cleaners and hospitals.

Industry groups reacted quickly, challenging the E.P.A.’s authority to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases and questioning Ms. Jackson’s power to lower the threshold for regulation.

Charles T. Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, said that the emission of greenhouse gases was a global problem and that it was pointless to regulate only some sources.

“This proposal incorrectly assumes that one industry’s greenhouse gas emissions are worse than another’s,” Mr. Drevna said. “E.P.A. lacks the legal authority to categorically exempt sources that exceed the Clean Air Act’s major source threshold from permitting requirements, and this creates a troubling precedent for any agency actions in the future.”

Supporters of the plan said that it was carefully written to affect only the biggest emitters.

OSLO – One judge noted with surprise that President Barack Obama "didn't look particularly happy" at being named the Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Another marveled at how critics could be so patronizing.

In a rare public defense of a process normally shrouded in secrecy, four of the Nobel jury's five judges spoke out this week about a selection they said was both merited and unanimous.

To those who say a Nobel is too much too soon in Obama's young presidency, "We simply disagree ... He got the prize for what he has done," committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland told The Associated Press by telephone from Strasbourg, France, where he was attending meetings of the Council of Europe.

Jagland singled out Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe.

"All these things have contributed to — I wouldn't say a safer world — but a world with less tension," he said.

For nine-year Nobel committee veteran Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, Obama's demeanor spoke volumes when he first acknowledged the award during a news conference Friday on the lawn of the White House Rose Garden.

"I looked at his face when he was on TV and confirmed that he would receive the prize and would come to Norway, and he didn't look particularly happy," she told the AP by telephone.

"Obama has a lot of problems internally in the United States and they seem to be increasing. Unemployment, health care reform: They are a problem for him," she said.

She acknowledged there was a risk the prize might backfire on Obama by raising expectations even higher and giving ammunition to his critics. "It might hamper him," Ytterhorn said, because it could distract from domestic issues.

Still, she added: "Whenever we award the peace prize, there is normally a big debate about it" so the Obama controversy was not unexpected.

It was unusual, however, for the Nobel jury to speak out so candidly about their selection.

Even the most seasoned Nobel watchers were surprised by Obama's Nobel — they hadn't expected the U.S. president, who took office barely two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline, to be seriously considered until at least next year.

Jagland said that was never an issue for the Nobel committee, which followed the guidelines set forth by Alfred Nobel, the Swedish industrialist and inventor of dynamite who established the prize in his 1895 will.

"Alfred Nobel wrote that the prize should go to the person who has contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year," Jagland said. "Who has done more for that than Barack Obama?"

Aagot Valle, a left-wing Norwegian politician who joined the Nobel panel this year, also dismissed suggestions that Obama was undeserving of the honor.

"Don't you think that comments like that patronize Obama? Where do these people come from?" Valle said from the coastal city of Bergen. "Well, of course, all arguments have to be considered seriously. I'm not afraid of a debate on the Peace Prize decision. That's fine."

World leaders have reacted positively to Obama's Nobel in most cases, the committee said, with much of the criticism coming from the media and Obama's political rivals.

"I take note of it. My response is only the judgment of the committee, which was unanimous," Jagland said.

In announcing the award Friday, the committee, whose members are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament, applauded the change in global mood brought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation. They also praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease U.S. conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change.

The White House declined comment on the Nobel judge's latest statements.

However, Obama expressed surprise and humility at Friday's news conference, saying the prize should be considered not a "recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations."

Nobel Peace Prize selections have often been surrounded by fierce debate. Controversial awards include the 1994 prize shared by Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli leaders Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin for Mideast peace efforts, as well as the joint prize to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and North Vietnamese negotiator Le Duc Tho for a 1973 cease-fire agreement. The Vietnam War continued for two more years.

So the Nobel jury "expected that there would be a discussion" about Obama's award, said Kaci Kullman Five, a former Conservative Party parliamentarian and longtime Nobel committee member.

Valle said the criticism shouldn't overshadow important issues raised by Obama's Nobel.

"Of course I expected disagreement and debate on ... giving him the prize," she said. "But what I want now is that we seriously raise a discussion regarding nuclear disarmament."